Conservatives be Like

Since no one else has, I'll bite; want to debate about something? I'm a bona fide conservative and will go at it on any subject matter (your choice, and for reference I'm Catholic, if you're considering a religious subject). Just agree to remain calm and not devolve to ad hominem attacks and we'll get along just fine.

Debate topic: Gun Control.

Ooh, a bite!

Right, so the first thing I consider non-negotiable is that every single human being has a right to live its life and they have a right to defend that life. Firearms are the most effective tool for self defense, so therefore I think everyone should be able to use them for legitimate self-defense.

That said, there are simply lousy people out there who want to do nothing but hurt others for their own benefit, and giving them such an effective tool as a firearm is just asking for trouble. To that end, my core stance on the matter is, "Good people aren't going to commit a crime with any firearm because good people don't commit crime in the first place. How do we ensure only good people have access to these tools?"

Background checks are the first line of defense. If you have a history of criminal violence or your local law enforcement has flagged you with an 'unstable' or similar flag (which can happen) then you shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm. Likewise, if you are mentally unstable or even on temporary medication that can make you unstable, you shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm (and hopefully a friend/family member has taken any that you own away).

Second, I think there should be VOLUNTARY (NOT mandatory) gun buyback programs offered nationwide. The huge number of firearms in this country does contribute to their ease-of-access, and buying them back would be a good way to cut down on any number of gun-related incidents in the nation. Combined with a mandatory background check system that has no loopholes, you'd see a good reduction in gun crime overall.

I oppose a gun registry and limitations on types of firearms or firearm accessories. A registry does nothing but show you don't trust the citizens who have passed background checks and frankly represents government intrusion into private life that we don't need or want in this nation. People buying guns second-hand aren't going to report that to a registry anyways, so it won't accomplish its primary function anyhow. "Scary black guns/assault weapons" are often identical to other firearms laid into more traditional wooden frames. Banning things like pistol grips, forward grips, types of stocks/braces, etc are just bans on guns and gear that makes those guns safer, easier, and frankly more fun to shoot. There is no reason why law-abiding citizens should be denied access to this gear.

Okay. The problem with backround checks is all but the most psycho can hold it together for three days so we should also make it where if they do behavior that would have disqualified them it retroactively disqualifies them. I also think we should ban high-capacity magazines since there are two reasons for them:
1) The user is such a bad shot they shouldn't be allowed near a gun or
2) They want to kill people in which case they definitely shouldn't be allowed near a gun.

A background check is not a mental health check. A background check is something performed by the FBI at the behest of whomever is selling the customer a gun. They present to the retailer all the individual's records and display any relevant information about them. If any disqualifying information comes up on the check, the individual is not (in theory) sold a firearm.

As far as high-capacity mags go, you missed the actual reason most people get them; Going to the range and popping off twenty/thirty rounds in a row is effing fun and entirely harmless. In an actual home-defense situation, you don't want to waste time fumbling in the dark for a new magazine (if you even had a spare loaded) while some robber/rapist is in your home. Hyped up on adrenaline, maybe not a great shot (compounded by the stress of the situation), you want more rounds than fewer in a given scenario.

Here's a compromise that I would be willing to accede to though; for fully automatic weapons and any magazine with a capacity of more than twenty rounds, individuals should pass a firearms competency test (offered by the local sheriff's department in the same manner concealed carry tests are now) and have a criminal record with nothing worse than a misdemeanor.

Additionally, I think we need red flag legislation that would let us monitor the internet for people who cross the line from simple rhetoric to actual, demonstrable, and specific threats of violence (I'm going to shoot up the school, I want to kill someone, I want to kill blacks/Jews/Catholics/gays, etc). If the FBI actually investigated such alerts to see if the perp is actually a threat, we'd have prevented a huge number of school and other mass shootings.

Again, the issue is not the tools themselves. The issue is how we go about preventing tools from being misused.

Good points. I really enjoyed how we had an actual fact based discussion which is more than I can say for other conversations I have been in here at Imgflip.

You're welcome. Just because I did most of the talking, what's your view on gun control? If you were in charge, how would they be regulated?

Here is what I would do:
1) Make it where you need to be at a licensed range and/or have special permits to get high-capacity magazines that way people can have fun and people won't be able to do mass shootings as easily.
2) If they exhibit disqualifying behavior after they get a permit they will lose the permit.

Eh, I think anywhere you can legally discharge a firearm (some private property, national forest/BLM [Block Land Management] land, ranges, etc should have equal standards and not limit things like higher-capacity magazines. It's not like a rule saying, "Don't shoot more than ten rounds here!" is going to stop someone who wants to break the much-more-important "don't kill people" law.

Fair point and one that needs to happen more. Sheriff depts. can already flag and strip concealed carry permits in lots of jurisdictions. I know they're overworked, but their authority should be expanded to include general citizenry monitoring where they ensure people who are showing warning indicators (not namby-pamby, "He looks extremist" nonsense, but definitely demonstrable threat indicators) have temporary flags attached to their background checks and potentially have their firearms taken away.